- From: Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:24:16 +0000
- To: Israel Hilerio <israelh@microsoft.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Victor Ngo <vicngo@microsoft.com>, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Changes made and added to editor's draft. Edited the description of IDBRequest.transaction and step 10 of "VERSION_CHANGE transaction steps". Thanks, Eliot > -----Original Message----- > From: public-webapps-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Israel Hilerio > Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 4:52 PM > To: Jonas Sicking > Cc: public-webapps@w3.org; Victor Ngo; Jeremy Orlow > Subject: RE: [indexeddb] IDBRequest.transaction property set to null > > Yes, this should only impact the setVersion onsuccess handler and not the > open onsuccess handler. We're in agreement :-). > I will work with Eliot to update the spec here. > > Israel > > On Friday, July 08, 2011 4:18 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > I think setting the event.transaction to the newly created transaction > > for setVersion's success event makes sense (we might even do that in > > the firefox implementation iirc, but i'm not fully sure). > > > > For all the other events mentioned in the original comment of this > > thread it needs to be null as no transaction is created. > > > > This matches what is proposed, right? > > > > / Jonas > > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Israel Hilerio > > <israelh@microsoft.com> > > wrote: > > > Jonas, what do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > Israel > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 06, 2011 9:35 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > > > > > > I'd be OK with it. Jonas, what do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > J > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Israel Hilerio > > > <israelh@microsoft.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, June 28, 2011 11:21 AM, Israel Hilerio wrote: > > >> On Monday, June 27, 2011 11:59 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Israel Hilerio > > >> > <israelh@microsoft.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> >> In the definition of IDBRequest.transaction it stipulates that > > >> >> "This property can be null for certain requests, such as for > > >> >> request returned from > > >> IDBFactory.open and IDBDatabase.setVersion." Based on this we > > >> understand that the following handlers will set the transaction > > >> property to > > null: > > >> >> * setVersion onsuccess handler > > >> >> * setVersion onerror handler > > >> >> * setVersion onblock handler > > >> >> * open onsuccess handler > > >> >> * open onerror handler > > >> >> Are there any other times when this property should be set to > > >> >> null or is this > > >> the complete list? We couldn't think of any other times when this > > >> applied but wanted to check. > > >> > > >> > I believe this is correct. > > >> > > >> >> Also, in the setVersion case, if we're setting the result > > >> >> property to its active > > >> transaction, why are we setting the transaction property to null > > >> instead of the same active transaction? > > >> > > >> > I know Jonas and I talked about this, but I don't remember the > > >> > reasoning for sure. One thing I can think of off the top of my > > >> > head is that > > >> it's weird that it'd start off null and then be set later. Also, > > >> it would be duplicate data given that .result is also set to the > > >> transaction. Is there any strong reason to set it? > > >> > > >> > J > > >> > > >> The main reason was to keep a consistent calling pattern inside our > > >> event > > >> handlers: > > >> * event.target.transaction.oncomplete > > >> > > >> The only exception to this pattern are the open and setVersion APIs. > > >> In the case of the setVersion handler we have to use: > > >> * event.target.result.oncomplete > > >> > > >> It would be nice to use only one pattern all the time. > > >> > > >> Israel > > >> > > > > > > What do you think about the idea of having a consistent/common > > > access pattern for accessing the transaction inside most of our > > > event handlers (i.e. inside setVersion but not open). This will > > > always guaranteed a good (not null) transaction handler developers > > > can always > > count on. > > > > > > Israel > > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 14 July 2011 19:24:47 UTC